sphericth0r

I'm not sure why you take issue with the facts that the word aggravated in this context means that the people are implied, or that adding words is not easier to read. It's okay that you didn't know what aggravated means, but it still doesn't change the fact that this is redundant information. Redundant information is harder to read, and the specific gender of the victim does not add anything to the context for the headline, a de facto harder to read title. It's possible that this was done on purpose, or that the author was also unaware that aggravated means people are involved and felt they needed to add words.

You're right about the backyard but that would involve a person or people. If the discharge is aggravated, by definition it implies that people are involved. Adding the gender of the person that is implied is done for an emotional response from certain groups by not providing context that is useful. We fill in the blank with our biases.

I think that they're saying that the person is implied, aggravated discharge of a weapon with no person involved is just target practice.

But why is the character cross eyed?

It's probably best to look at what the devops industry is embracing, environment variables are as secure as any of the alternatives but poor implementations will always introduce attack vectors. Secret management stores require you to authenticate, which requires you to store the credential for it somewhere - no matter what there's no way to secure an insecure implementation of secrets access

That's just as insecure lol, env vars are far better

I don't see any evidence to support the assertion that government is more efficient, but I may have missed it in the article. Could you cite your sources please?

I'm not sure why we wanted Google building housing anyway, seems like a perfect opportunity for them to blend their real estate and advertising holdings in a perverse way. This seems like the best possible outcome.....

I guess, according to this article, car insurance companies are encouraging people to drive recklessly and kill others in their vehicles, simply by providing them with insurance against the bodily injury of others. I'm not sure how the author doesn't see the parallels between any insurance that guards against reckless behavior and the NRA's insurance. To be clear I'm not a user of their insurance or a member of their organization, just finding the lack of introspection in the argument used in the article appalling.

Even worse, they'll claim it was a bug

Yes, and I find them indistinguishable from liberal subreddits. The echo chambers are pretty easy to find..